That is a crap argument Wayne. It's like saying it's a women with a ham who just made the bread company millions and they won't give her bread. You go, "it's just a loaf of bread" and they go "well you have ham, do whatever everyone else does and buy it."

It's stupid... it's small change to the school for someone who's earned it anyways. Instead of finding crappy logic to fight it, why not just realize it is a small way to fill a gap that reasonably they helped greatly in the $$$ they would use to give them. It is such a small addition to what they already get to just be comprehensive, what is the lashback alll about? It makes no sense. It is like complaining the women thinks she should get some free bread for her hundreds fo thousands of dollars benefit to the bread company. It's picking a fit that seems to be unreasonably against.

Uggg... I've laid this out over and over. One last time and I am done with this nonsense.

Cost > than income.Benefit to school > compensation from the schoolNeed existNeed will get filledboosters and others offer a way to fill need to enhance program talentstudent have more reason to mess upfill that need, they have less reason to

I'm sorry Pablo, but this "tough stance" on what they COULD do is crap when the easy obvious answer is that they could easily fill the need of the student athlete with all the money they are raking in. You are being stubborn and acting like they get enough and need some tough love. This is nonsense... your solution that they should "just get a job" ignores the fact that there might not be any jobs.

The all enclusive, clear answer is to just extend the scholarship by a LITTLE more... what is so agreevise about that? why are you so against it? The resistance level seems so asinine I really cannot put it into words.

Money is always the easy answer steensn, doesn't make it the right answer. If you think making someone responsible for their own minor expenses is a "tough stance" then you really have no clue as to what tough is my friend.

I think you are trying to coddle these players who probably have been coddled ever since they showed some promise on the football field. You act like a little debt after school is a terrible thing, we are talking about such a realatively little amount over the course of four years.

These days everyone is working harder for less, everyone has sacrificed. Not for these pampered football players - we need to give them more, more, more?

I lived in the football dorm at State and while I'm sure some things have changed, these guys get tons of crap for free. Cover charge at the bar, nah just sneak in. Meal at a restaurant, nah don't worry about the tab. It goes on and on.

Why am I being stubborn? Because this WILL NOT solve anything and open a can of worms - no thank you!

The reason this is an argument is because Football and Basketball make money, but the other sports don't. There are only a select few athletic departments that even make money. Most are in the red. Do we have to pay the rowers? What about the gymnasts? The cross country runners?

Should the scholarships be all inclusive? sure, but they're already getting a better deal than almost all college students. The schools who make money will have that unfair competitive advantage that will not allow the smaller schools to consistently compete. How are you going to pay for the addition of these expenditures? If an athletic department has to add an additional 4k per athlete... that's a hell of an expense.

I just don't buy the argument that because the school makes money from the performance of the team and all the ancillary benefits that these kids DESERVE to be paid. There's no RIGHT to play college sports, therefore there's no legal obligation to pay these kids. If they start getting additional benefits, will they have to join a union?

My take on all of this is that the players shouldn't be paid by the schools, but they also should not be prevented from making money elsewhere. Obviously they can't be allowed to take money to influence the outcome of a game, but I think they should be allowed to do things like accept an offer from a local business to be a spokesperson or something like that. Just like local businesses do with professional athletes. It's not influencing the games in any way, but it allows the players to make money if someone wants to pay them for a service. I see nothing wrong with that.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

September 16th, 2011, 12:48 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12312

Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

My take on all of this is that the players shouldn't be paid by the schools, but they also should not be prevented from making money elsewhere.

Another thing that I don't think has been mentioned is Title IX. IF you start paying male athletes, you have to equally pay women athletes. ..so, where is all this money going to come from again? Oh yeah, the schools, of course. And how will the schools recoup this money? Higher and higher tuition costs, which will put these kids back in the same place of supposedly not being able to afford 'stuff'. Circle of life???

As long as we have a monetary society, these types of challenges will always be present.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

September 16th, 2011, 1:36 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools

Wags, These players make the schools more money than it cost to pay their real life cost to go there. That is why they deserve it.

Pablo, this nonsense of "you don't know what tough is" BS sounds nice but has no merit. There is no reasonable reason to not fully cover these kids cost for the year if they provide that level of benefit for the school. You are being "tough" because it is silly, nonsensical, and unreasonable. Please stop taking words out of context.

If the kids are not not allowed to use their fame to benefit as TJ pointed out seems silly, then the NCAA should do the right thing and cover their expenses. There is no rational to be againstt covering their yearly reasonable expenses if you are going to limit their ability to benefit of their talent.

Screw Title 9, you get rewarded for you impact, not the work you put in. If fans don't care about the schools volleyball program then why have it?

Wags, These players make the schools more money than it cost to pay their real life cost to go there. That is why they deserve it.

Respectfully disagree. They need to EARN it, the don't DESERVE it.

steensn wrote:

Screw Title 9, you get rewarded for you impact, not the work you put in. If fans don't care about the schools volleyball program then why have it?

So now you're taking a sexist stance? Nice.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

September 16th, 2011, 2:28 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9645Location: Dallas

Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools

steensn wrote:

Wags, These players make the schools more money than it cost to pay their real life cost to go there. That is why they deserve it.

See Wags, steensn has a signifcant flaw right here and basis his entire argument around it. It is because the players on on the team that people come watch them play, not the other way around except in a few extreme cases (such as Luck who he tried to use in an argument).

He is so caught up in arguing his case, he simply can't come to grips with the flawed starting piont and everything gets lost from there. Unlike the NFL or NBA, where players drive the league, in NCAA Football it is the schools that are the driver.

All arguments he makes center on this, such as the line to me "There is no reasonable reason to not fully cover these kids cost for the year if they provide that level of benefit for the school"

That is a big IF. In fact, I think one could (if spending enough time and energy and resources) find that an individual football players "level of benefit" comes out well below how they are are already compensated in terms of tuition/room/board.

steensn big error is that he can't seem to grasp that the school already has a ton of "goodwill" and other than a few isolated circumstances the players don't add nearly as much value as he thinks. His flawed math is basically taking a look at what these programs and divide by the number of players to determine each players worth. That is so far off and each players incremental "value add" is minimal.

Shouldn't be surprising, as pointed out it is surface level thinking, rather than digging into the real situation at hand. He will throw out terms like BS to deflect rather than take a deeper look and see the original flaw that leads down a path without any real merit.

Again, muddying the waters nonsense. If something doesn't add value it isn;t worth anything. Sexest is FORCING equal sports for the sake of making things "equal." Non-sexest stance is to base it's relevance on it's relevance. If society treats womens sports as less relevant, that is the societies choice. I'm going to ignore who the benficiaries are or the players as it is irrelevant. If it happens to be stacked against the women, so be it. I'm going to be gender NUETRAL on this one, which is not sexest but unbiased.

Ok, then exactly HOW do/did they earn it? By choosing that particular school and its associated history, coaches, system, etc? By having the skill to play a sport?By perhaps coming from meager backgrounds?

It's almost as if you think/believe these schools wouldn't be able to survive without these kids.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

September 16th, 2011, 2:52 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12312

Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools

steensn wrote:

TheRealWags wrote:

So now you're taking a sexist stance? Nice.

Again, muddying the waters nonsense. If something doesn't add value it isn;t worth anything. Sexest is FORCING equal sports for the sake of making things "equal." Non-sexest stance is to base it's relevance on it's relevance. If society treats womens sports as less relevant, that is the societies choice. I'm going to ignore who the benficiaries are or the players as it is irrelevant. If it happens to be stacked against the women, so be it. I'm going to be gender NUETRAL on this one, which is not sexest but unbiased.

Saem stance I have on race for college applications and scholarships.

While that may the way you personally feel, you and those like you will need to fight Federal Law in order to enact what you're proposing

Wiki wrote:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."—United States Code Section 20

Wiki wrote:

Applicability and complianceThe legislation covers all educational activities, and complaints under Title IX alleging sex discrimination in fields such as science or math education, or in other aspects of academic life such as access to health care and dormitory facilities, are not unheard of. It also applies to non-sport activities such as school band and clubs; however, social fraternities and sororities, sex-specific youth clubs such as Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, and Girls State and Boys State are specifically exempt from Title IX requirements.

Title IX applies to an entire school or institution if any part of that school receives federal funds; hence, athletic programs are subject to Title IX, even though there is very little direct federal funding of school sports.[14]

The regulations implementing Title IX require all universities receiving federal funds to perform self-evaluations of whether they offer equal opportunities based on sex[15] and to provide written assurances to the Dept. of Education that the institution is in compliance for the period that the federally funded equipment or facilities remain in use.[16] With respect to athletic programs, the Dept. of Education evaluates the following factors in determining whether equal treatment exists:[17]

Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexesThe provision of equipment and supplies;Scheduling of games and practice time;Travel and per diem allowance;Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;Provision of medical and training facilities and services;Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;Publicity.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

September 16th, 2011, 3:02 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools

You take the top talent out of the NCAA and put them in a developement league and the NCAA football moves from a multi-billion dollar industry to a much smaller one. Your mistake is thinking that people will buy jerseys for winning QB Heisman trophyJack Kennedy, starting QB for UM or star UM WR Martavious Odoms.

The talent level "forced" to the NCAA through the rules of the NFL combined with the fan alliance with schools makes for the NCAA football being what it is. You don't have the level of industry without the talent, it's as simple as that.

I have no flaw in the worth of the players because I didn't produce the number, an expert did. So if you think that I went out and did that, then you are clearly probing again you are not paying attention. If you think that was all the expert did, you again prove you didn't read what he wrote...

Quote:

A national college athletes' advocacy group and a sports management professor calculate in the report that if college sports shared their revenues the way pro sports do, the average Football Bowl Subdivision player would be worth $121,000 per year, while the average basketball player at that level would be worth $265,000.

Even if they worth a portion of that because the school provdes more impact than the player, an extra $3-$4k is within reason to say they earned it.

To ignore the impact these top talents bring with all the excitement is silly. Take the best talent out and have the middle tier college football players going to division 2 play up would kill the multi-billion dollar industry and everyone knows it.

Ok, then exactly HOW do/did they earn it? By choosing that particular school and its associated history, coaches, system, etc? By having the skill to play a sport?By perhaps coming from meager backgrounds?

It's almost as if you think/believe these schools wouldn't be able to survive without these kids.

Same way the NFL players do, they provide excitement and a skill level that draws more fan's $$$ than would previously been had without them. Could the sport survive? Sure, but it wouldn't be as profitable and swimming in cash like it is and there is no way to deny it unless someone wants to act ignorant about it.

Again, muddying the waters nonsense. If something doesn't add value it isn;t worth anything. Sexest is FORCING equal sports for the sake of making things "equal." Non-sexest stance is to base it's relevance on it's relevance. If society treats womens sports as less relevant, that is the societies choice. I'm going to ignore who the benficiaries are or the players as it is irrelevant. If it happens to be stacked against the women, so be it. I'm going to be gender NUETRAL on this one, which is not sexest but unbiased.

Saem stance I have on race for college applications and scholarships.

While that may the way you personally feel, you and those like you will need to fight Federal Law in order to enact what you're proposing

Wiki wrote:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."—United States Code Section 20

Wiki wrote:

Applicability and complianceThe legislation covers all educational activities, and complaints under Title IX alleging sex discrimination in fields such as science or math education, or in other aspects of academic life such as access to health care and dormitory facilities, are not unheard of. It also applies to non-sport activities such as school band and clubs; however, social fraternities and sororities, sex-specific youth clubs such as Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, and Girls State and Boys State are specifically exempt from Title IX requirements.

Title IX applies to an entire school or institution if any part of that school receives federal funds; hence, athletic programs are subject to Title IX, even though there is very little direct federal funding of school sports.[14]

The regulations implementing Title IX require all universities receiving federal funds to perform self-evaluations of whether they offer equal opportunities based on sex[15] and to provide written assurances to the Dept. of Education that the institution is in compliance for the period that the federally funded equipment or facilities remain in use.[16] With respect to athletic programs, the Dept. of Education evaluates the following factors in determining whether equal treatment exists:[17]

Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexesThe provision of equipment and supplies;Scheduling of games and practice time;Travel and per diem allowance;Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;Provision of medical and training facilities and services;Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;Publicity.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.

I think the application of the law is complete crap and sexist just like I think extra points on a college application is racist. Anytime you give a benefit to a person based solely on race or sex you are being sexist and racist. I don't have to agree with the federal law, I know it all to well. That was the trojan horse they used to cut mens track and swimming at Toledo and BG to cut cost. They couldn't cut the biggest budget hogs like volleyball because there wouldn't be "equal # of sports." It's nonsense... each sport should stand on it's own merit and that is it. Leave race and sex out of it...

To ignore the impact these top talents bring with all the excitement is silly. Take the best talent out and have the middle tier college football players going to division 2 play up would kill the multi-billion dollar industry and everyone knows it.

steensn, you are not being consistent, so I need try to understand what you are really saying here:

1) top talent EARN their school money by playing footballtherefore, they should have all their expenses paid for based upon what they return to the schools.

OR is it

2) Top talent EARN their schools moneyWe then must redistribute those earnings in a socialistic fashion and spread them out evenly among those players that don't EARN it

NOW, in terms of consistency, I have to assume it is argument #1 since you poo poo anybody playing on a sport not generating a lot of money so therefore not EARNING it. But this doesn't seem to follow the crux of past arguments so please clarify.